Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Bridge/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Josephua (talk · contribs) 22:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, out of sympathy that this article has not been reviewed for a long time (November, oof), I will be reviewing your article. As this is my first time doing a good article review, I hope you can also have some sympathy for my reviewing skills. As usual, if my review for the article does not seem for you adequate, please critique what I can do to improve. Thank you! - Josephua (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: Images are fine and the article has not suffered any edit wars. - Josephua (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Description - Harlem River lift bridge (NY 900G) - "At the time of its completion, the Harlem River lift bridge had the largest deck of any lift bridge in the world, with a surface area of 20,000 square feet (1,900 m2)." - I assume this is from Rastorfer's book, because if not, it is unsourced. - Josephua (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Description - Bronx Kill crossing (I-278) - "The main truss span across the Bronx Kill is 383 feet (117 m) long, while the approaches are a combined 1,217 feet (371 m). The total length of the bridge is 1,600 feet (488 m). The truss span is 55 feet (17 m) above mean high water." - Source 3 only verifies that the approaches are a combined 1,217 feet, but everything else, source 3 does not cover it. - Josephua (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for taking up the review. I do appreciate you taking a look at this nomination, and will look at this tomorrow. In the meantime, in regards to both your points above - all the measurements are cited to Rastorfer. The overall measurements of each span is also cited to NYC Parks. epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strange, I did not see any reference to any when I checked NYC Parks, except the 1,217 feet measurement. - Josephua (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed now. epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * History - Initial plans - "Plans for connecting Manhattan, Queens and the Bronx were first announced by Edward A. Byrne, chief engineer of the New York City Department of Plant and Structures, in 1916." - I think this sentence should have an active tone. - Josephua (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed, too. epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: I seen plenty of criticisms and approvals, as well as the history section showing both good progress and obstacles to the completion of the bridge. The article fulfills neutrality. - Josephua (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: Most sentences are backed by a reliable source (ex. New York Times). Article fulfills most points of verifiability. - Josephua (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: All sections are mainly on topic and fits Wikipedia format, fulfilling broadness. - Josephua (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Description - East River suspension bridge (I-278) - "Originally it connected to the intersection of 25th Avenue (now Hoyt Avenue) and 31st Street." - This could use better wording. - Josephua (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * Description - Harlem River lift bridge (NY 900G) - "The span connects to the Harlem River Drive and the FDR Drive, as well as the intersection of Second Avenue and East 125th Street, in East Harlem, Manhattan, though there is no direct access to the northbound Harlem River Drive. The lift span was designed by chief engineer Ammann." - Try to combine these two sentences. - Josephua (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * These two sentences are completely different clauses and don't really match. I instead combined the second of these sentences with the leading sentence in the paragraph. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Description - Bronx Kill crossing (I-278) - "Originally it connected to the intersection of East 134th Street and Cypress Avenue, which is now occupied by the interchange between I-87 and I-278." - I do not suggest using adverbs in the beginning of the sentence. - Josephua (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I don't really see this as a problem, but it may not work in this case. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Description - "The Triborough Bridge is made of four segments. The three primary spans traverse the East River to Queens; the Harlem River to Manhattan; and Bronx Kill to the Bronx." - Try combining these sentences using a colon. - Josephua (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The second and third sentences are more relevant to each other, so I instead combined those. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Tolls - I feel the lead description in this section needs to have its sentences to refer to the Triborough Bridge more, as right now, it is explaining how the NY EZ-Pass system works. - Josephua (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really, it's more about the discounts given to NY E-ZPass holders, rather than explain the mechanics of the E-ZPass system. This is standard for articles about other toll bridges in NY state. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Update: Lead is balanced, layout fulfills criteria, and word choice is good. There are no lists. - Josephua (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion: The review is finished. I did not check the validity of all of the sources, but since that every sentence is cited, and a majority of them are either from the MTA or the NYT archives, I trust that the article fulfills the references requirement. However, my complaint of one source still needs to be addressed, and if addressed, I will pass references. Grammar is minor, such as combining sentences and wording, so I believe they can be quick fixes. For focus, tolls should be improved, so instead of explaining how the EZ-Pass system works, maybe relate it to the Bridge. If all three is addressed, I will pass the article for GA-status. Good luck! - Josephua (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-conclusion update: Article is focused and grammar is good.


 * Has there been any progress on this review? Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Busy with college and homework, so the review may go on for a bit. - Josephua (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional comments. I have replied to these. epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I still need you to address the previous concerns I have. They are the ones that are not currently strikethroughed. - Josephua (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Consensus: Seems that everything is good to go, so I will pass the article. Congratulations, after almost a year of the article not getting reviewed, the article reaches good article status, so the wait was then worth it. - Josephua (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-review: I would also appreciate any constructive feedback for the review. It is my first GA review and I hope that I can learn something from it when I do my next review. Thanks! :) - Josephua (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your review was pretty good. You may like to check the last few GA reviews I have experienced for examples of different review styles:
 * Talk:Central Park/GA2
 * Talk:Mill Basin, Brooklyn/GA2
 * Talk:Parachute Jump/GA1
 * Talk:The Battery (Manhattan)/GA1 epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)